A non-Catholic reader writes:
I was discussing several issues with a Romanist Apologist on the Planet Envoy forum. He indicated that the Magisterium declares that anyone who believes in Sola Fide is a heretic, and that as a result, their damnation is certain. What say you on the matter?
I’ll tell you. But before I do, let me say something else: Didn’t your momma teach you any manners at all?
Unless you are uncommonly unfamiliar with the standard use of the terms you are using, you must realize that the term "Romanist" is a religious slur that is highly offensive and used to express contempt for Catholics.
Would you really walk up to an African American and say something like, "So I was talking with a <INSERT RACIAL SLUR> activist, and he said . . . "?
Or would you e-mail a Jewish scholar and say, "I was in a chat room with a <INSERT ETHNO-RELIGIOUS SLUR> guy and was wondering if you, as one of his fellow <SLURS>, could comment on what he said?"
If you wouldn’t do these things, what the HECK are you doing writing to me, asking for my opinion on something, and throwing a religious term of contempt in my face?
Whatever bigoted language you may choose to use when among your own co-religionists, common sense should tell you how rude it is to go throwing such language in the faces of those from whom you are asking favors.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Having made this point, let us now go the extra mile to address the subject of your query.
Since I have not read the exchange in question, I cannot comment on what the Catholic apologist said. I can only comment on what you report him as saying. There may be important nuances that have been lost in transmission.
That being said, there are two difficulties with the position as you present it.
The first concerns the use of the phrase "sola fide." While certain interpretations of the proposition that we are justified "by faith alone" (sola fide) have been infallibly rejected by the Magisterium, and while it would be materially heretical to endorse these interpretations, it is not the case that every possible use of the phrase has been infallibly rejected as heretical.
The use of the phrase is intrinsically misleading and contrary to the language of Scripture (since the only time the phrase is ever used in Scripture, in James 2:24, it is rejected under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost), but it is nevertheless possible to ascribe a meaning to the phrase that is non-heretical. For example, if (a) one understands the faith in question to be faith that results in hope and charity and if (b) one understands this phrase (as Luther did) non-exclusively of baptism, then the result is non-heretical. (See the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.)
It is thus not the case that every possible interpretation (however forced or improbable) of the phrase "sola fide" has been infallibly rejected as heretical.
The second problem with the position you articulated concerns the damnation of heretics. While it is true that one who is formally guilty of heresy loses the state of grace and will be lost unless he responds to God’s grace and repents, it is not the case that all who embrace heretical positions lack the state of grace.
Those who, though excusing causes such as ignorance, hold in good conscience positions that are materially heretical are not formally guilty of heresy and so do not commit mortal sin by holding these positions and do not lose the state of grace.
The Church thus does not hold that all who use the formula "sola fide" (whether in non-heretical or even heretical senses) are damned.
Jimmy: It’s possible the individual who wrote the question didn’t even know he was being rude.
It could have been worse. He could have said “mackeral snapper.” 😉
For what it’s worth, I apply the terms “Romanist” and “Papist” to myself in discussions with Protestants. I find it removes the tension that a polite person would feel about using the wrong term, and really, both words describe my position accurately if they’re taken literally.
I too wouldn’t get too upset about the term. It’s a little annoying, but it really doesn’t mean anything other than the speaker is not Catholic. It’s like when Episcopalians insist on calling us “Roman Catholics” rather than ever calling us “Catholics” — or when Christians talk about “Mohammedans” or “Moonies.”
Well, as soon as I read the first sentence of the above question, my nerves jarred at the term “Romanist”.
I don’t mind ‘Roman Catholic’, I’m not going to get upset about that at all,but the slur ‘Romanist’ is offensive to me and I think I would have responded similarly.
I was going to comment further but I have to go out for the evening…hey, a short post at last!
God Bless.
Seamus, Episcopalians mainly call us “Roman Catholics” because they think they are Catholic too. There is a popular theory in Protestant Anglicanism that there are 3 types of true churches (Roman Catholic, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy) and thus implying one can be Catholic without being in union with Rome. This is untrue, of course, but “Roman Catholics” is used to erect the mental model of their (incorrect) theology.
Of course were are Roman Catholics, and Catholics as well. Pius XII described the Church as one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and Roman. There’s nothing to be ashamed about in calling oneself “Roman” or “Roman Catholic” or even (dare I say it) “Romanist.”
Is “Romanist” the Catholic analogue to “k—” (ethnic Jewish slur)? I don’t think so.
It could have been worse. He could have said “mackeral snapper.” 😉
Lauda: I went to a Catholic High School. Whenever we had a football game with our cross town arch rival inevatably sometime during the day, they would come to our school open the front door and throw a carp down the hallway.
Not a problem though as we beat them 9 out of 10 times. 🙂